Author: Mark Fletcher

News Ltd has botched its support of the Wildlife Warriors charity established by the late Steve Irwin and his wife Terri. News is promoting the sale a green band for $1.00 to raise funds for the charity. Newsagents in NSW report being provided too little stock to satisfy demand. Several I spoke with sold out by noon. With newsagents the only outlet, they ought to have been supplied more than the number of newspapers they sell. Instead, they were supplied less. Significantly less. Making matters worse is a slow backup stock system which means newsagents won’t have bands until Tuesday. Too late.

It’s in South Australia that News Ltd really stuffed up. They ignored newsagents and appointed BP the exclusive distributor of the bands. This is nuts. I’d expect they would have sold more bands and raised more funds had they used newsagents. The takeaway for newsagents has to be that News considers them less relevant than BP.

In Victoria, a week ago, the bands were handled better by the Herald and Weekly Times folks.

Newsagents are being paid ten cents for every band sold – to cover their administration costs. Newsagents I have spoken with would have been happy to receive nothing as long as they were given sufficient stock to make the fund raiser work for the charity and as long as others in the supply chain worked for no margin as well.

If News was serious about raising the maximum amount of funds it would have run the campaign on one day nationally and leveraged better PR as a result. It would have used newsagents and, indeed, all newspaper outlets. It would have ensured sufficient stock and a good backup plan. That’s if it wanted to raise the maximum funds for the charity possible. (I appreciate that marketing plans are set months in advance and not all states could agree on the one date – but this campaign was unexpected and important to Australians.)

Turning this fund raiser into a commercial strategy and cutting out your core distribution channel as happened in South Australia is poor form. I reckon Steve Irwin would have something to say about it.

Photo from Sunday Telegraph website.

I like that magazine publishers adjust the cover price of titles. Whatever their motivation it provides retailers like newsagents with extra revenue to cover increased rent, labour and other costs. Newspaper publishers, on the other hand, continue to hike up advertising rates while barely adjusting the cover price. Sure there has been some movement this year. However, looking at data for the last ten years the shift in the cover price of top selling magazines is more commercially attuned than what I see for newspapers. Some titles have increased by 25% while top selling papers are up by 10% in the same period. Labour and rent for many newsagents have increased by more than 40% in the same period.

Here is the poster we have created for our COOK book promotion. Remember, Big W are selling this for $36.95, less than our buy price. Our store is being dressed with A1 posters surrounding our stock with a hope that the stack em high watch em fly strategy works. Big W are demonstrating a lack of creativity in their approach, but they usually do. While discounting will move the stock, the question has to be what does this do for the brand and for Big W. Deep discounting is like a drug addiction. Either you continue or, through intervention, you clean up and see that there is a brighter future. Our approach is rooted in a longer term view which respects the product and our own brand.

Bloomberg is reporting that Pacific Equity Partners is in buyout talks with Australia’s biggest printer, PMP. PEP last week announced the formation a joint venture to take over the Supanews Newsagent group. The joint venture includes Angus and Robertson and Whitcoulls stores.

Not content with the challenges of a rapidly changing marketplace, some newsagents are engaged in a series of bitter and personality based fights which threaten to tear the channel apart. By newsagents, I mean the politicians, those elected to the Boards of the state associations and the national association.

In May of this year the ANF signed a Memorandum of Understanding with each of the state newsagent associations in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. Since then, in NSW and QLD, it’s been guns at 30 paces. The ANF has served breach notices on the states for the most minor of infractions. In Victoria, any minor infraction has been ignored.

The MOUs I have seen are convoluted and provide a basis of confusion for what was to be a harmonious marriage. I have seen breaches of the MOUs by both sides. It is nonsense to issue breaches when all newsagents want is robust membership on the issues that matter.

The battles, in my mind, are all about membership for it is membership which determines the make up of the Board and for some a Board position is all that gives their life meaning, or so it would seem.

There is a battle going between the ANF and one state at present which threatens to tear the fragile unity among newsagents apart. If newsagents knew the story they would lose all faith in their associations. State Associations must serve their members first and in doing so ought not be attacked by the ANF.

The participants need to pause for a moment and consider their various constituencies. How are newsagents best served by the time and money being spent on such a personal and spiteful battle? They are not. At the time the MOUs were being considered I said that immediately on signing all directors ought to have resigned and fresh blood brought in. That this did not happen has led to the current situation.

I was a Board member of the ANF in 2004. The concerns I expressed in my resignation letter of almost two years ago have not been addressed. They go to the heart of the current mess.

Newsagent associations are in need of strong experienced and independent thinking board members. Without this the current mess, which has provided for more than ten years of poor representation of newsagents, will continue.

Unless this mess is fixed in the next few days newsagents would be well served resigning from all industry Associations. The Catholic Church in Boston refused to address its scandals until it was affected at the collection plate. Newsagents withholding funds from their associations could have the same effect.

The report, Corporate Paedophilia
Sexualisation of children in Australia from The Australia Institute has received worlwide coverage this week and, from what I have read, much of it sensationalised. After hearing reports about Total Girl and Barbie Magazine were presented as evidence I wondered what that makes newsagents. Should we take the titles off our shelves?

Looking to get behind mediocre reporting I read the report last night. While I disagree with some points, it is entirely appropriate that the report is authored and published. Poor reporting by some media outlets denies sections of the public from understanding the core thesis of the report.

It is unfair to target a single corporation or magazine title as being guilty of ‘corporate paedophilia’ ever if the label is used as a metaphor. The problem needs to be considered as a whole – magazine content coupled with online content, TV programs, fashion advertising and even news reports in a variety of media. As the paper says in its summary: There has as yet been no sustained public debate about the sexualisation of children in
Australia. For this to happen we need more thorough reporting, beyond the screeching of the last few days.

COOK is an excellent new cookbook. 600 pages of recipes from The Australian Women’s Weekly. COOK is beautifully printed. The Recommended Retail Price is $69.95. I ordered 100 copies even though my newsagency is big in books – I was glad to have the opportunity to play in a new space – especially with such a premium product and in the lead up to Christmas.

Then gorilla retailer, Big W changed my plans. In my centre they are selling COOK for $36.95. This is less than our buy price. Even before COOK is advertised by the publisher, Big W (Woolworths) is ruining the market for everyone. Dymocks has COOK at $59.95. That makes more sense – it’s where we expected to be. I’d have accepted Big W selling COOK for, say, $49.95, given their focus on being cheap. $36.95 is nuts.

The Big W strategy is to grab attention with a loss leader regardless of the damage done to a product along the way. Their pricing of COOK at $36.95 is arrogant. But, I have to cop it – such is competition. It reminds me of why I hate businesses like Big W. They are a cancer in the retail channel. They screw with consumer’s minds. They disrespect brands. They kill off the creativity of their employees. They squash small businesses – the standard bearers of community among retailers.

Gorillas in the jungle would have better manners.

Now, let’s see if we can be smart in how we compete.

It’s taken three years to build but newsagents now have a viable retail network for bill payment and prepaid recharge product. Like any new kid on the block, all stakeholders have worked together to ensure that there are no barriers. Our service costs the same or less (in the case of some billers) than that offered by Australia Post. There are no extra fees for payment type, until now. Newsagents have just been advised that from November there will be a 14 cent fee for debit card payment. While we’re not the first with such a charge, the challenge for newsagents will be the seamless implementation of this charge on to the customer so that newsagents themselves are not left funding this. It is something else to track, claw back and process.

I expect some newsagents to levy a fee which compensates for the extra work while others will pass on the 14 cents. I wonder how customers will react. My sense is that our network is not strong enough to sustain a levy like this. Newsagents are not expected to be as fee hungry as Australia Post.

We cannot afford the 14 cent fee to be a tipping point against the growth we have achieved so far in this area.

David and Michele Heinrich of newsXpress Clare have posted the following email to colleague newsagents:

Are there any other Newsagents in rural areas staring to feel the affects of the drought, covering all Australia, we are currently 1100 customers down since July 1st 2006, thanks to working smarter with a progressive marketing group we are only approximately $6000 in turnover down. I fear that this could have been worse had we not adopted different practices over the last few months,

I would like to ask this question, who will ask magazine distributors to help ease our overload that WILL put us under pressure during this time, we are awash with oversupply and those affected areas will need some assistance, again the top 200 sellers are ok it’s the rest that will cause pain.

I notice with interest how the farmers are given assistance ( great lobbyists), I don’t need government handouts , just some understanding of the situation by our government (magazine distributors) of the pressure they will put rural newsagents under.

Please other rural newsagents let your situation been known so we can start to gather information to present to our ANF friends to lobby on our behalf.

I have suggested to the magazine distributors (Gotch, Network and NDD) that they participate in a conference call or some other urgent event to agree on a strategy to assist drought affected newsagents. Such assistance could be increasing time to settle accounts; faster processing of returns credits; more accurate supply quantities; local marketing to support the newsagent as opposed to other outlets.

David and Michele are right to bring attention to this problem. Newsagents and other small local businesses are doing it tough as are the farmers.

The photo is from a CSIRO report on El Nino.

Most people think of Australia Post for sending mail. But in truth that’s just one of the many things we do for business.

From the Australia Post business services website.

Australia Post is saying don’t think of us as a mail service, think of us as your stationery supplier, your printer, your fulfillment service. This mocks the Postal Corporation Act 1989. Section 14 requires Australia Post to provide a postal service first and foremost:

The principal function of Australia Post is to supply postal services within Australia and between Australia and places outside Australia.

Section 15 talks about permitted subsidiary functions:

A subsidiary function of Australia Post is to carry on, outside Australia, any business or activity relating to postal services.

Section 16 talks about other permitted functions:

Functions—incidental businesses and activities

(1) The functions of Australia Post include the carrying on, within or outside Australia, of any business or activity that is incidental to: (a) the supplying of postal services under section 14; or (b) the carrying on of any business or activity under section 15.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the functions of Australia Post include the carrying on, within or outside Australia, of any business or activity that is capable of being conveniently carried on: (a) by the use of resources that are not immediately required in carrying out Australia Post’s principal or subsidiary function; or (b) in the course of: (i) supplying postal services under section 14; or (ii) carrying on any business or activity under section 15.

On this government’s watch Australia Post has taken millions of dollars in revenue from small business. The situation is getting worse.

While farmers fight the effects of the drought, newsagents have to also content with the impact of our own government taking sales from our registers. At least farmers get financial relief from the government. Maybe that is being paid out of dividends paid by Australia Post.

It’s like withdrawal in newsagencies this week. No Steve Irwin story on the cover of New Idea or Woman’s Day. No lottery jackpots. Yep, the first ‘normal’ week in newsagencies in a long time.

UPDATE 10/10: The post below refers to a MySpace profile which has been made private in the last 24 hours. When I found the profile by accident using Google it was public. Following Julz’ comments (below) I have slightly modified the original post.

Julz is 17 and works at a Nextra newsagency somewhere in Brisbane. She dislikes her job as she has told the world through her MySpace blog:

so everyone knows how much i disslike my job at nextra right?

well…..

i’m QUITTINGG!!!!! wooooottttt

and have a new job at David Jones in the city – young contemp womens fashion

n e way enough with the smileys…ok one more…

so come visit me at nextra, i’ll only be there like 2 weeks more, and get your free gum while you still can!!

Julz is entitled to her view. What concerns me is that she seems intent on taking out her dislike for her job on her employer – or am I misunderstanding the line about free gum? I’d like to know what Julz has said to her employer about the job and how her employer responded. Have they made an effort to make the job more enjoyable while continuing to serve the needs of the business? How would David Jones’ management feel if they read Julz’ comments – would they still give her a job?

Blogging provides Julz and millions like her a place to publish her feelings and opinions. She, like her My Space friends, needs to understand the consequences. For example, I’d expect that human resources departments will trawl through My Space and other public places for what is not submitted in resumes. This blog entry would knock Julz out of contention.

There are jobs in this world which are not great, especially if you’re 17 and just starting your working life. The best way to make those jobs bearable and even enjoyable is to work with your boss. Maybe there is not one else to do the crap tasks. So be it. Maybe discussion will lead to compromise and a more enjoyable job. Bitching about it at My Space and quitting for a job at David Jones does not fix a problem Julz is likely to take with her.

I am all for employees venting publicly – as long as they have taken the matter as far as they can within the business in pursuit of a fair resolution.

PS. I’m not spending hours trawling My Space for what people working with me think. Julz’ blog came up via a Google blog search for newsagency references.

It’s good to see mainstream media asking some questions about the big business approach of the National Breast Cancer Foundation. This Fairfax article (Sydney Morning Herald and The Sunday Age) asks questions but does not dig deep enough. In a previous post I documented the deal done by the NBCF with Woolworths for the distribution of their Pink Ribbon magazine.

If you believe the spin put out by the NBCF, the deal helps them reach more people. I’d say that is nonsense. Instead of Pink Ribbon being prominently displayed to a broad cross-section of the community, a new style Pink Ribbon is to be distributed as a -tip-=on, a free stuck on giveaway, with Women’s Weekly. Pink Ribbon readers want to buy the magazine. I know from what they say at our counter that they are frustrated that they have to go to Woolworths (Safeway).

The NBCF has decided that they would rather be on a supermarket shelf than on the shelves of a magazine specialist, that they would rather cozy with big business than small business.

It would be good to see Fairfax follow-up their story with more on the NBCF and their corporate deals. They should research whether these corporate deals lead to a disconnect with the community as I suspect is the case. Take Pink Ribbon – you are more likely to have had a conversation with a newsagency employee about the issue than would happed at a supermarket checkout. Isn’t awareness part of the NBCF mission? Based on the Pink Ribbon actions I am guessing not.

In the meantime, more newsagents are refusing to participate in other NBCF fund raising activities.

As the article by Fairfax suggests, cancer fund raising ought to be about the bigger picture rather than a body part.

Further to my blog entry three days ago about the takeover/merger of the Supanews newsagent group by Pacific Equity Partners’ Angus & Robertson group, I note with interest the opening paragraphs of their press release:

In a move that will change the face of the Australian newsagency industry forever, newsagency chain Supanews has announced a joint venture with Pacific Equity Partners-owned A&R Whitcoulls Group Holdings Pty Limited (ARW Group).

“We understand that this may ruffle a few feathers with the 5,000 independent operators in Australia,” says Adrian Gaskin, General Manager of Supanews.

The release, as is usual with such things, is full of spin. What they don’t say is that immediately upon the takeover / merger, the Supanews model was turned on its ear. Whereas in the past they only operated as a company store / franchise group, from yesterday they started pursuing existing newsagents to join by offering “NO ROYALTY”. That is, no franchise fee. This is an odd move for the group. If the Supanews model was so great, why take such a dramatic departure from that model the same day you announce the takeover / merger?

Go to the Supanews website and see how they try and attract newsagents to join Supanews:

…by becoming part of Supanews you eliminate the risk of us opening a store in direct competition to you.

Yeah, fear is a good motivator. Sure their website promotes other benefits but this one? Why?

A stronger Supanews will be good for newsagents. It will galvanise newsagents to be more competitive. The involvement of A&R Whitcoulls demonstrates that the channel is no longer a cottage industry. It also provides evidence that suppliers will treat newsagents differently. – something the newsXpress group has been demonstrating for the last two years as it has grown from 31 stores in February 2005 to 95 stores in September 2006. It forces suppliers to look at the channel in a different light – to take newsagents more seriously. It will also force newsXpress and Nextra to become even tougher competitors – I’m not sure about Newspower since it does not have the same commercial structure as newsXpress and Nextra.

If the new Supanews takes off it could also spell problems for independent newsagents. Magazine distributors, for example, will still have the same volume of rats and mice titles to distribute – titles outside the top, say, 200 – a strong disciplined Supanews will demand that their stores not be overloaded, meaning that independents will receive more of these titles.

I expect newsagents to be skeptical about the U-turn announced by Supanews yesterday in their invitation to join the group. It will take more than some text on a website to erase memory of Supanews.

Disclosure: I am a shareholder in and Director of newsXpress, a competitor of Supanews.

I have had $8,000 in revenue taken from my newsagency by a ‘genius’ allocations clerk at the PBL owned Network Services. Here’s how: Partwork publications are a point of difference for newsagents – we are the only retail channel offering partworks and many newsagents embrace them wholeheartedly. Funny Bones is one of the most popular partwork series to come to Australia from the UK. This De Agostini publication has been a huge hit here. In fact, it has been too successful. As with all partworks we encouraged our customers to sign up for our putaway service – we keep each copy aside and send them an SMS message when the stock arrives. It’s a premium service without any additional cost.

We have firm orders for ten copies of Funny Bones and have sold out of each issue we have been sent. We have not received the last four issues and have called and emailed with little success in getting a response until yesterday when we were advised that some genius within Network Services decided that our stock would serve their needs better if they sent it elsewhere. This is despite us selling out and them knowing that we sell out each issue.

The Network decision to cancel supply to my shop means I have to cancel the orders for the ten committed customers. Some may stop shopping with us. Over the life of the publication this could cost us $8,000 in direct lost revenue plus lost add on sales. Add on sales amount to $10.00 to $20.00 worth of purchases each time a customer collects a partwork issue. This equals an estimated $20,000 in revenue is at risk as result of the decision to cut supply.

We have actively promoted Funny Bones in our shop since its launch, giving over prime real-estate in pursuit of long term customers. In return for our gift of labour and real-estate we have been abused and no one cares. We have taken this issue and other similar issues with partworks to the Australian distributor, Bissett Magazines, with no success. As I said to Bissett and Network yesterday:

How newsagents are treated over partworks makes me question the viability of being the ‘magazine specialist’. I am tired of getting done over. I am tired of dealing with incompetent people making decisions which hurt my business. I am tired of working hard to launch a new product only to have it taken elsewhere once the hard yards have been done (Alpha, Cosmos, Funny Bones etc). How would Coles or Woolworths react if Network and Bissett treated them in this way? They would demand compensation for sure.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

I love partworks and partwork customers. It’s the suppliers and distributors who are killing this golden goose for newsagents.